Posted at the Cohort by nifty43
Gah! It’s so ugly it’s painful.
I agree. That is one of the ugliest front ends I have ever seen. Almost Edsel like in it’s own way.
LOL! I agree. It’s so ugly, it’s laughable.
Looks like it’s trying very hard to pinch a loaf.
That’s way I was thinking. Like it’s severely constipated. Nasty.
On one hand, the new Cherokee is 30 years more advanced in every way, both on road and off.
On the other hand, the new Cherokee’s styling probably won’t be considered timeless in 30 years, unlike the XJ…
The front is way cool, but not “Jeep”. And the back is totally generic. I’ll take the vintage red one!
The Salesperson of the Month has an old one. ‘Nuff said!
Wanna bet it was spoken for the instant the previous owner drove it on the lot?
I wouldn’t take that bet. Cars are like footstools to people working in dealerships. Getting the best trade to drive is always a highly desirable pastime, the cheaper the better. I scored a very nice 1992 Eagle Summit for $1000 and drove it without incident for t almost two years.
From our perspective, probably not.
If you’re a Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep sales person, the answer is “yes,” as Fiat-Chrysler has been selling the new Cherokees at a rapid clip.
Not a big fan of the new front.
I’ve always wondered about honoring the top sales person this way. Is it supposed to drive traffic to him? If the metric for top sales person is measured by total profits to the dealer, isn’t this the guy you absolutely want to avoid?
Hey, come see Mike! He knows how to reach deeeep into your pockets!
What rule says he’s the top salesman based on profit margin? If he’s the lead guy on volume, he may move more metal through deeper discounts. Or he could be top in the customer satisfaction surveys. I think I’d prefer to talk to Mike.
Replying to all. I’ve never worked in a dealership, and I’m sure there are variances in how aggressive they are based on my personal buying experience. But, I’ve read a lot about them, have read a lot of consumer tips, and a lot of confessions of former car salespeople – some of whom are treated like crap by some dealerships.
The boil down is that the sales person’s primary job is to stand between you and the vehicle and extract from you as much money as possible before you get it. In many cases, the more money extracted, the salesman naturally gets a better commission, but probably even a higher share of the profit over a certain amount.
I’m sure a major metric for top sales person is units sold, and probably one of the most traditionally tracked. The more logical metric would be profit – If Mike moves 25 units and brings $10,000 profit to the dealer, and Sam moves 28 units, but only brings $9,000 to the dealer, who is the better salesperson? I’ll make a bet about who the general manager took to lunch.
I can’t rule out that Mike didn’t get high scores on post sale customer satisfaction surveys. I know Ford seems to be putting some pressure for better behavior from their dealerships based on my buying experience in 2013, and I was sent such a survey for the first time in all my purchases.
But, I can tell you I’ve been around salespeople in several organizations. Some are terrific people. Some are not incentivized in ways that are adversarial to the customer. Some are noisy narcissists that make a lot of money, abuse their expense accounts, make claims that others in the business have to apologize for later – and get away with it because they PRODUCE. The trickle down ethics of some owners and managers have a lot to do with this sort of salesman’s existence.
The average car salesman is handicapped from being a nice guy thanks to the compensation plan. Last year I haggled with four dealerships for a month, studied a lot of ads and deals, and finally got a hell of a deal. No car salesman battles you for a month for fun, they do it for the profit.
I welcome any comments that say I’m wrong. The world would be a slightly better place if I am wrong.
Sometimes a good salesperson is someone who really understands the customer’s needs, and can get them in the right car, with the right story. I tend to walk away from pushy salesmen who don’t listen and try to force stuff on me.
The “good salesperson” you describe might work at a dealer for a few months. “Good Salespeople” don’t close enough sales to make a living.
Take it for granted, the salesperson you avoid like the plague is probably the biggest producer at the dealership. His pushy attitude is how he pulls the customer across the line.
“This coffee is for closers.”
The guy you’re comfortable dealing with probably won’t be around the next time your car shopping. He’s either decided he’s not making enough money and quit, or the dealership decided he doesn’t produce enough and fired him.
My father was one hell of a car salesman. We also had an incredibly strained relationship at home during my youth, and when he brought up the idea of my following him into the business (at the time Volkswagen of America had offered dad a new dealership in a nearby town), I ran like hell.
The one thing I knew in my adolescence is that I didn’t want to become like dad.
As a salesman who has been at the same dealership for over 10 years, and who is the top producer- numbers and profits- year in and year out, my mantra is “Help someone buy”. If you listen to the customer, help them find something that suits them, and be helpful and transparent, they will always come back and will always refer people to you. Most people liken car buying to going to the dentist so if they know they can trust you they are even willing to let you make a little money.
I agree. That’s a good way to go. You treat the customer the same way you’d want to be treated yourself.
Those people do exist, I’ll happily say. The salesman who got my sister and BIL’s business was someone who sounds like you. No BS, straight answers, polite service, and a good offer on the trade in. Those concepts seemed to be incredibly foreign to the guy at the other Jeep dealership, who almost torpedoed their buying a Jeep completely.
OK, what I don’t get: Enough sales people seem to be making a living without resorting to the old bait and switch, nitpicking on the trade-in, “I’ll have to talk to my manager”, etc., etc., etc. BS. Since its a more pleasant way to do business, why don’t all (or most) salespeople follow this model?
Or are some sales people just unintelligent enough that they can’t figure out how to close a sale without making it an excrutiating experience?
Many dealers simply don’t allow salesmen to “close the deal”. I was at two dealers this past weekend. Once the test drives were over the salesmen served little function other than to pass information between me and the sales managers. I hate that.
Sadly there are always a lot of “green peas” who really don’t know how to complete a deal. Not unintelligent necessarily- although some really are- just new. One’s best bet when shopping is to ask for a senior sales person or check some online reviews of the dealership(s) you are considering and see what dealership and/or salesperson has consistently good reviews. Once you meet someone in person you can usually tell if they are on your side or their own. Usually. Also, once you do find someone who did right by you- by all means- leave a good review, too, for others to find.
My last two new car buying experiences were Honda and Kia. Both were very pleasant transactions. Well, Honda was completely pleasant, which was notable on a brand new model available only by waiting list. After the deal was done, the Kia dealer tried to give us a car with about 250 miles on it after Mrs. JPC had made it very clear from the beginning that if she was getting a new car, it had to be a new car, not one with a couple of hundred miles on it. They adjusted the price after a couple of phone calls and everything else was fine. In their defense, it was apparently hard to find one equipped as we had specified (no power doors).
I read a very good comparison of the two Cherokees in an editorial in the back of Motor Trend. If you were here in 1983 when the XJ Cherokee was released you remember just how different that car was. The competing domestic vehicles had their traditional styling and equipment options, but the XJ was just so… international. The Bronco II and the S10/15 Blazer/Jimmy were definitely products of the home team, but you could see Renault’s influence on the Cherokee. That it lasted as long as it did and was as world renowned as it became speaks to the amount of effort and forethought the original design team put into it. The ur-Cherokee seemed just as at ease in North America as well as in Beijing or Switzerland. It truly went everywhere.
Now we consider the new Cherokee, based on a bunch of Fiat mechanicals. I really like the styling of these, and I’m curious to see how they will be regarded in the future. Compared to the current crop of North American competitors (I can only look at it from this viewpoint), I think the new Cherokee is the best one out there. I’m itching for a close friend to rent/lease/buy one so I can get some seat time in one. I’ve had plenty of seat time in the Chevy Equinox and the new Ford Escape, both have their merits. Neither one really knocks me out, although the lease deals you can get on the ‘Nox make it almost a no-brainer for my family, I’ve sat in and looked extensively at the new Cherokee and remain intrigued.
I hope that Sergio and Company have done as a good job of adapting the Fiat mechanicals to the Cherokee model as AMC Renault did with their turn at the Cherokee. Even at that point in time, AMC was almost a cottage industry, assembling cars and trucks from other people’s parts. Although, not that far away from the roots of independent automakers, either. Regardless, Fiat’s Panda has an awesome off-road reputation in other parts of the world away from North America, maybe some of that awesomeness will rub off onto the Cherokee.
In the end, I hope that 30 years from now, we will appreciate Chrysler-Fiat’s stewardship of the Cherokee nameplate as much as we now appreciate AMC-Renault’s efforts then.
What a triumph for AMC stylists and engineers!
I’m racking my head trying to think whats so “international” about the original Cherokee?
Not knocking it, because I DO like them, but besides the oddball 2.1 litre Renault diesel that was barely ordered, I really don’t see what made them so different? They did have a 4 door from the start, which was smart as shit.
True that Renault money and engineering helped deliver the baby, but to me, the XJ Cherokee is as AMC as CJ or an Eagle.
It made popular the ladder-box chassis within a single monocoque unit. Because of this, the Cherokee was much lighter than the typical body-on-frame ute, drove better, and allowed for the use of the very small (for a 4X4 of the time) 2.5 1-4. At least that’s how I see it…
It’s construction method was nothing new, it is just a simple unibody. It is not a moncoque. A monocoque is supported by its stressed skin. Having things that look like frame rails goes all the way back to some of the first unibody vehicles.
When the S10 Blazer came out it was available with a 2.0 4cyl.
Thanks for the clarification; I was under the impression monocoque and unibody were essentially the same thing. I stand corrected!
Those 1-4 Blazers must have been some of the slowest machinery around. I would have thought they would have at least utilized the Iron Duke…
“I’m racking my head trying to think whats so “international” about the original Cherokee”
There was nothing European about the “Original” Cherokee. That one was FSJ based. The XJ was a big departure.
The XJ even had Renault seats with the single track.. how much more European do you want
Wow, single track seats Egon…….because no human could have ever done that…..
You’re trying to argue a unibody SUV, circa 1980, with Renault seats, doesn’t have some Continental flavor?
I’m mostly being sarcastic, I know that Renault had influence of course, but a unibody and Renault seats don’t exactly make it “The Continental”……but I get where you could say that is does seem a bit more euro than others.
Renault sent Francois Castaing to completely oversee the development of the XJ Cherokee. Renault wanted the XJ to be very suitable for sale in Europe. That dictated light weight, a unibody, and four doors. It’s possible thta AMC was already heading that direction, but Castaing made sure it was not compromised. There was considerable input and influence by Castaing on the final product.
I recommend re-reading this: http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1984-jeep-cherokee-amcs-greatest-hit-thanks-to-renault/
Renault wanted the Cherokee to be suitable for Europe, and Castaing made sure it was: The XJ was light (weighing as little as 3,100 lbs), thanks to its unibody construction and a watchful eye on every other detail, including these lightweight, Renault-designed center-rail front seats lifted right out of the Renault 9/11 and Alliance. It was a totally different approach than Ford and GM took with their new small SUVs: They simply shortened their compact pickups, which sat on traditional frames. As a consequence, the S-10 Blazer and Bronco II generally weighed up to several hundred pounds more than the Cherokee.
A much better comparison would be the XJ Cherokee and a Patriot. They’re actually quite close in dimensions, not to mention styling. The biggest difference is that the XJ is mainly driven by the rear wheels, while the Patriot is normally FWD.
Frankly, all someone wanting to relive those XJ days has to do is simply buy a new Patriot. For regular, day-to-day driving (and not the tougher off-road stuff), it’s actually quite a bit better.
From hands on experience, I’d say mass of hard plastics in the 2014 seem to match the that of the 1997 in terms of quality.
In all seriousness though, the new Cherokee is one of the better looking (no that’s not a typo) and more distinctive small CUVs on the market. I was a bit letdown by the interior when I sat in one, but I guess I shouldn’t have expected something as nice as the Grand Cherokee’s. I’d still easily chose it over a RAV4, CR-V, Escape, Equinox, Terrain, or Rogue.
If a car could wear a look of ashamed horror, that red Cherokee is wearing it.
It is kind of shrinking back in its parking spot too isn’t it?
That’s the worst angle to view the new Cherokee, not so bad in profile.
No manual transmission available. Bleh!
My wife referred to the new Cherokee as “The Catfish”. Nuff said.
That’s an apt description. Put a set of curb feelers on to round out the look.
My fave is ‘urinal face’.
I usually hear it called the row of urinals Cherokee. Once you’ve seen the urinals across the Cherokee, you can’t unsee the row of urinals across the front of the Cherokee.
The new Cherokee seems nice all around, but it does not have a stick shift like the Renegade. Now that is a Jeep I am excited to check out.
The XJ might have been something new, but to my eye it did (and still does) look like a lifted, 4WD Volvo 245. If you’re gonna steal, steal from the best.
Back in the day, I flirted with buying an XJ Cherokee. Now they’re unavailable with a clutch, at least in the US. Sad.
I’d prefer the older XJ Cherokee over the new Cherokee.
Owned an XJ for 11 years, 265,000 trouble free miles. What did I replace in eleven years… brakes, oil, tires, one water pump and two wheel bearings. The last oil change revealed a consumption/loss of maybe 1/2 quart every 3,000 miles. XJ over the new any day.
That face. I just haven’t warmed up to it…at all. The sides are sort of ok, and the back is…well like an original Subaru B9 Tribeca, but that face.
Even though they ended up smoking the lenses for the low-positioned headlights, after the backlash from the early leaked photos with them bright and prominent, when they are lit, you still get this really weird 6-eye insect thing going on.
You just know that those lighting units are going to be combined into unified, more conventional units at the mid-cycle refresh. They are selling well, as the drivers don’t have to look at the front of it often, but for the rest of us..yeech!
The new one is a fine vehicle, but it’s so different from the XJ that it’s hard to think of it as a successor. It just happens to have been given a storied name.
As a ‘successor’ to the XJ….absolutely not. Granted, as CUVs go then its probably the most capable, at least in TrailHawk form. I hear tell its even got a dual range setting in the transaxle. But this is a fwd based setup. It will NOT have the durability for much off roading for very long. It wont be able to tow like an XJ either. Oh, you can hook up a trailer and Im sure itll go down the road just fine…but if you do that, you better dump it the day the warranty expires because those diddly little car components wont last.
Styling wise, the front clip is pretty bad. Why they didn’t model it after the Grand Cherokee, Patriot, or Compass is beyond me. I will allow that in TrailHawk trim, they don’t look entirely feminized and they do have some really nice looking black wheels….some of the nicest OEM rims Ive seen in some time.
Personally, this rig is not for me. But its selling like hotcakes and stuffing money in the Mopar warchest…hopefully for future Wrangler badassery. As CUVs go, its definitely more ‘Jeep’ than the compass/patriot and will likely run rings around any other. But this class of vehicle sells…and if you don’t have it, you cant sell it.
How often did original Cherokee buyers actually take theirs offroad? I’m not talking about now, when 1/3 of offroaders seem to be heavily-modified XJs.
Remember, the XJ was the vehicle that started the SUV craze among those who would only use it to shuttle the kids around.
The key difference is the ability. I’d argue that 1/3rd of those offroaders have done a better job of establishing street(trail?) cred to the Cherokee name than Fiat’s best marketing department will ever do with this… thing. Time will really show the best approach, 20 years from now the vast majority of new Cherokees will be scrapped, while old XJs will still be darlings of the offroad community, if not collectors items.
I guess I don’t follow your logic. Nobody is buying CUV’s due to perceived off road ability. They aren’t trying to sell these to the group of people who take your point seriously, even if it is a “Jeep”… The market has moved on, why shouldn’t the product?
No, but people who bought the first generation ones DID, now whether they actually did do that or not is irrelevant.
This simply doesn’t deserve the name. The same way what became the Probe never deserved the Mustang badge.
Will they? Only time will tell. I can imagine that buyers of the 1974-1983 full size Jeep Cherokee SJ going into Jeep show rooms in 1984 and seeing the new compact Jeep Cherokee XJ and saying the same things we are saying about this new Cherokee. I can imagine them saying “WTF is this small piece of crap? It will ruin the good name of Jeep” or ” it is to small to tow S$%^!” As the old SJ was a reliable durable off roading tow beast.
However the smaller Cherokee was a huge success from day one and is credited(or loathed depending upon who you talk to) for bringing about the SUV craze. It matched the SJ in towing and off road ability BUT possessed good road manners that allowed it to be able to used as a daily driver. It was the right truck for the time.
History may say the same for this new Cherokee and already Jeep cannot keep up with the orders. Times have changed and the CUV’s give 99% of the population everything they could need. Most folks are not taking their trucks off road anyway so making a vehicle trail worthy is not really worth the trouble.
A lot of SUV/CUV are going to the FWD AWD/4×4 layout. The current explorer is FWD and still maintains a good tow rating with the optional tow package. I had 2008 Taurus AWD for a few months(till a drunk totalled it) and it was very good for everything I needed to do with it on and off road( I guess that is not a surprise due to it being built on a chassis Volvo designed)
The old myth that the only way a 4 wheel drive vehicle can be good is if it is created with a longitudinal engine is dead.
My late wife was a real estate agent during the housing boom. Ours came home muddy on a daily basis as clients insisted on seeing the view from the foundation site in a new subdivision, but were unwilling to get their feet dirty tramping across the unimproved field.
From what I’ve read, the Trailhawk version of the new model would do that job just as well.
Well let’s put it this way. I wouldn’t kick a Trailhawk Cherokee out of bed for eating crackers, that’s for sure…
Someone should let NASA know (if the lights are still on there) that a flying saucer has landed at a Jeep dealership. The Body Snatchers have arrived.
I agree, the new Cherokee looks like something out of a mid 50’s sci-fi creature movie (Invasion of the Giant Ants comes to mind)!!
Run…..Run Away and save yourself before Sergio captures you and your wallet!!!
I get it that car making is about money making. Jeep needed a RAV4, and their first two attempts were also-rans. Should they have called this eyesore a Cherokee? That’s the rub, but they aren’t really Jeep at this point anyway.
Hell to the no.
As a long time Jeeper I’ve come to accept the new “Cherokee”. The pre-production images weren’t flattering at all but the ones I see on the road aren’t bad. And it has “low range”.
It’s an evolution of the Cherokee and it found it’s market. Just like the XJ did.
I’ll take the original any day; granted the new Cherokee has 30 years of improvements in it, but that front end is simply awful…the comment about the front end looking like a catfish hit the nail on the head. The original Cherokee XJ was instantly regarded as a classic and is still well regarded thirty years later. I don’t think the new version will do nearly as well.
I totally agree with you regarding the front end appearance. It’s worse than ugly. When I first saw the XJ Cherokee, I thought it was ugly, but it has long since grown on me.
Going against the flow here, but I’ve grown to really like the new one. I loved the XJ when it came out (first one I saw was the Fratelli’s one in The Goonies movie). The KJ and KK Cherokees (as they were badged in New Zealand) didn’t appeal so much – they seemed like caricatures of the XJ. Although I was gobsmacked when the first KL pics came out, now I’ve had time to study the photos in detail, I find it very refreshing and unique. As with the XJ, it’s trying to bring something new and different to the market segment, and I for one hope it succeeds! And anyway, it could be worse… *cough Aztec cough* 😉
It’s ugly enough on it’s own, put next to it’s predecessor it’s a complete joke.
And it’s transverse engine/FWD based = DISPOSABLE JUNK
And yet more evidence of automotive bloat.
I agree. Transverse mounted engine is fine for front-wheel drive vehicles, but 4wd? Really? I don’t think so.
I knew many people that had the XJs, and they were used as nothing more than a rugged looking car. They didn’t impress me at all. I actually like the looks of the new one more than the original – well, except the rear. I can’t say if the durability is superior to the original. Some people I knew thought the original Cherokee was trusty, others not so much. At least this new one won’t be sabotaged by that atrocious GM V6.
I doubt that they will be used as anything more than a car, just like the vast majority of the originals.
When you buy an SUV, you want it to be well built, that way if you do go off roading, the vehicle won’t fall apart when you hit a rut, etc. If only cars were built like that.
Looks like a 1997 Isuzu Vehicross.
Are you serious? I thought the Vehicross was uglier than this.
Actually, I like the Vehicross.
I’m not a huge fan of the old Cherokee but the new one is not something I’d want to see everyday in my driveway
It looks – um – futuristic, as in perhaps 5 years or so ahead of public taste. Question is, in five years time, will the look fit right in, or will it just look weird, like the infamous Aztek? The lights ruin it for me – I reckon it’s the new Jeep Aztek.
We mustn’t forget that some of the early front end treatments on the YJ were not that attractive either. The YJ that everyone loves is the one that benefitted from several years of additional development (like the 4.0 inline 6).
I am trying to keep an open mind on the new one. The look is far from traditional, but I kind of like it. We will see how it holds up as style changes. My bigger concern is durability. The 4.0 YJ proved itself a tough one. I wonder if anything designed under modern weight and cost constraints will be able to even come close.
Just yesterday I talked with a man who was using his XJ to jumpstart an Odyssey. I asked him
“How many miles do you have on this?”
“Ever have any problems with it?”
It’s gotta be as good as the old ones. My brother-in-law, he the Bucks County (PA’s answer to Marin County), liberal, bleeding heart, DINK, politically correct, environmentally correct, trendy, yuppie just bought one. Who lives and dies by the Consumer Reports rankings of automobiles. Yes, he is a walking stereotype.
This is his first American nameplate vehicle since the early 1980’s. And believe me, he’s one of those types to whom American cars are untrendy, gauche, and fit only for residents of flyover country. And red-staters.
And he traded a Toyota Highlander Hybrid on it.
I was stunned. He and my sister always ask my advice regarding new cars, but anything American I ever put on the list never made it past the first culling. The first crack was last year when little sister almost bought a Volt, but opted for her second Mercedes C-class in a row (itself a minor miracle, she never buys the same nameplate twice in a row).
I’d respectfully suggest that we wait thirty years before trying to pass judgement, to give the new one the same benefit of the doubt we’ve always given the old one.
Of course that takes away all the fun of the knee-jerk reaction of, “It’s new, so its got to be a piece of crap!!!! And its based on a front wheel drive platform, which makes it even worse. And it doesn’t have a solid front axle, so of course only hairdressers would drive it!”
I always get a chuckle out of the automatic “old is good, new is bad” crowd.
Full disclosure: I’ve owned two of the XJ Cherokees. Both 2000’s. And I loved them. And still have fond memories of those cars, cornerstones of my last marriage.
The reactiveness common to the website is not necessarily understated by you, but in this case, seems justified as this thing is pretty dang ugly.
I would guess that in 5 years this won’t be considered au courant but rather analogous to the 1996-99 Fish Ford Taurus.
Sales and time will tell…
The new Cherokee’s look is growing on me, and I sure see a lot of them around central NM, but… it’s a Fiat/Chrysler mongrel. Nothing more; certainly not a true “Jeep.”
The mixed Fiatsler heritage is a powerful turn off for me, as I would think it should be to anyone even remotely familiar with the companies’ histories. Maybe the Cherokee (and Dart, and 200…) are different animals, greater than heritage would indicate or the sum of their parts. History is against that assumption proving accurate, however.
You wanna get hard core?
There’s only one “true Jeep”. In its current incarnation, it’s called a Wrangler.
Every else under the Jeep badge compromises out and out off-road ability to be useful and comfortable in day-in/day-out driving. Yeah, most all Jeeps are “trail rated”, but none of them will really do serious off-road like a Wrangler until you start doing aftermarket add-ons.
Are we talking Bantam Jeep? Willys Jeep? Kaiser Jeep? AMC Jeep? Chrysler Jeep? FCA Jeep? Uh, last I noticed there never was a company called “Jeep” who existed solely to make kick-ass off-roaders.
Saying this is a real “Jeep” is like listening to someone complaining that the motorcycle isn’t a real Harley-Davidson because its not a kick start Panhead, and the company isn’t owned by the Davidson Brothers anymore. Time and companies change, and evolve.
Thirty years from now we’ll know if this Cherokee is a good follow-up to its predecessor, a good off-road vehicle that didn’t lose too much of the “real” Jeep’s ability to be comfortable to all those customers who will never leave the pavement – or if it just was a suburban poseur.
Given their history, I’m betting on the former.
Yes, Syke, I know there was never a company called “Jeep.” As I thought I had made clear, my issue lies with the thoroughly unremarkable parentage of the current company.
Good point. The only “original” can be the original.
I’d say MaMopar has taken a gamble. I’m sure they’ll make mileage around 200k or better but I don’t see these being regarded like the XJ.
Well, Jeep division is rolling in cash from all the new “non-fan boy” Cherokees sold.
There is a huge base of buyers who want new tech vehicles and don’t expect ‘old styling’ or something that ‘brings back memories’.
Can go on and on about the front end or the FWD platform, but reality is it’s selling and keeping workers employed in Toledo.
Granted the new one is a lot more sophisticated under the skin, but I truly love the simplicity of the 1980s design, and like the Grand Wagoneer and Land Rover Defender, to me it represents an honest to goodness work vehicle, not a fashion statement like so many SUVs/crossovers today. The front of the new model is way too busy and in today’s world, I doubt it will have a long shelf life.
The one on the right reminds me of Adam in Beetlejuice when he and Barbara have to “make faces” to scare the Deitzes out of their house.
And if that association doesn’t sound flattering, you’re right! I like the one on the left a lot better.
haha!! Never thought of the ‘stretchy hand face’. I always thought it looked like when you stretched the corners of your dogs eyes back a bit to make him look ‘Chinese’. Kill the weirdo headlights for round units and this would clean up a LOT of the nastiness on that front clip.
I used to have a 1987 1/2 Cherokee Limited and a 1989 Laredo and I liked these. The early ones weren’t good at all but when AMC replaced the Chevy 2.8 and the Chrysler Torqueflite with their new 242 I6 and the Aisin-Warner AW4 transmission, things improved a bit! Unfortunately, their undercarriage was prone to rust and most are now gone or badly rusted! My Cherokee Limited still had the AMC badge on it’s (GM!) ignition key and on the sticker on the cowl. The 1989 had the Chrysler “Pentastar” logo on both it’s (still GM!) key and on it’s firewall. Later models got Chrysler ignition switches and keys. Even the doors were modified in 1991 to fit the smaller diameter Chrysler locks…
I learned when I replaced the 4 rusted doors on my 1989 with doors from a 1991. The complete wiring harness was also changed between those years so it was complicated to rewire the windows and power locks!
The other bad points were some cheap accessories like the power (or even manual) window regulators, the weak power door lock actuators, the wiper transmissions, the exhaust manifolds on the I6 that were prone to cracking, the cheap Korean radios, some weak suspension parts and not the strongest rear axles. A few had Dana 44 axles but most had either a Chrysler axle or a Dana 30. Both of mine had the Dana 30 which didn’t give me problems but for those who like big tires and off-roading it’s probably not the best choice…
Anyway, these are certainly not the best vehicles for serious offroading as a lot of parts were just too weak but they were still practical compact vehicles that could carry some stuff like a small station wagon and that did well in the snow. My Limited had a NP-242 transfer case that allowed using full time 4×4, part time 4×4 LO-HI as well as 2wd.
I liked the power and torque of the 4 liter I6. Both of mine had the early version with the RENIX fuel injection that was less powerful than the later ones but still quite peppy compared to the smaller V6 in the 1993 Toyota pickup that I had at the same time! But 5 years after having sold the last Jeep, I still have the Toyota and despite it’s lack of power, it’s a much better vehicle!
Even with it’s weaknesses, I still keep a good opinion of the post-1986 XJ Cherokees and I’d probably get another one if it was in good shape, cheap to buy and rust free! (I guess I won’t have another one soon!). But there’s no way I’d want the new one. I just don’t like how it looks and won’t bother to learn more about it!
You have to give them credit for trying something genuinely different in a segment characterized by bland uniformity. And many Italian designs are kind of shocking at first but then later seem inevitable as imitators follow in their wake.
This. But I still wouldn’t buy the first model year.
I kind of like the styling–I just don’t know if this was the right vehicle to revive the Cherokee name on. But it’s probably good for sales. The other questions will only be answered in time–but that uncertainty hangs over the whole lineup right now, given Fiat’s previous experience in this market.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.
About Arras WordPress Theme
Copyright 2011 - 2016 Curbside Classics. All Rights Reserved.